=Something Bad Jesus Did=

[IF_u_knew]

another non-Biblical account of Christ comes from the Roman historian Tacitus, who writes in 115 A.D. that a group known as Christians follow a man named "Christus" who suffered the severest penalty of Roman law (crucifixion) and whose following was greatly influential.

other Roman sources from the early Christian era report that Christians followed a man, Christus, who was crucified under Pilate, and that these Christians hold firm to their faith even under torture and persecution, and that the movement was popular with slaves, and with diverse peoples in Roman society. also noted was the Christian tendency towards honesty, kindness, and a preference for martyrdom instead of apostacy.

Interesting.. thank you for taking the time to share this. From my understanding though, the Romans absorbed much of the culture of Greece, which included their Hellenistic views. This would actually be in line with what you have said since their aim was to conquer and control; and to further that thought, the prototype is speculated to be none other than a child from the union of Julius Caesar and the Pharaoh Cleopatra (also Hellenistic in practice of religion) of the dying dynasty aka Egypt. The Child's name was Ptolemy Caesar. Though it is almost certain (almost) that he died at 17 (speculation is also that he escaped and fled to India, where there are accounts of a "christ like" figure learning eastern religions), he was already being revered as the son of god. The titles attributed to him were King of kings, "heir of god who saves," "Carrying out the rule of Ra," "Living image of Amun." Not to mention he was the intended heir of both Egypt and Rome, which would account for his murder by Octavian or at least his flight from. oh.. and his time of birth- death was not much before the time of Jesus' supposed similar story. I do not know.. just seems this is the closest "actual" occurrance in history to a story sounding similar to the account of Jesus in the NT and it occurred before those documents were written at a time when political power was very much based on religion. Couple that with Paul being Hellenistic in his views, the desire to downplay the Jewish people and what was taking place with them at the time.. and well, don't you ever wonder why the accounts are mostly Roman accounts and written *after* the supposed time of Jesus? (oh and christus in Latin means "other christ") Just food for thought in light of the question..

 

[ayani]

also significant are probably Jewish testimonies about Jesus from the Talmud, where He is called Yeshu. though much later, they report some interesting things.

they report that Jesus worked wonders, though they ascribe this to His being a magician, or deceiver. so His miracles are attested to. attested to as well is His execution, though this is recorded as being the work of the Sanhedrin, not to Romans.

 

[ayani]

doubtless many faiths have had god-kings in their pantheon, and the concept is an ancient one. it's nearly universal, and that's pretty clear across the spectrum.

initially, when i converted, i was wary of Paul. as a Muslim, i was told that his writings essentially ruined / Hellenized Christian thought, and avoided them.

instead, i stuck to the Gospels, and was surprised to hear Jesus describe / affirm Himself as the Son of God, Messiah, One with God, Savior of the world, Good Shepherd, Vine, and Gate. He makes great claims, yet in the Gospels we see Him back these claims with His signs / works, and we hear God's testimony concerning Him, too.

later, when i read Paul, i was surpised to see him failing to contradict anything Jesus said about Himself in the Gospels. i let down my guard a bit, and began to read the Pauline epistles. i found statements there consistent with the Gospel descriptions of Him, and consistent with what other early Christians (e.g. Peter and James) were writing.

every person who comes to know Him will be coming from someplace different. i came to Him from an Islamic background, so what i emphasize in telling others about Him will be different from what a Baptist pastor, a Messianic Jew, or a former Hindu would emphasize. Paul came from a background of strict, faithful, and detailed keeping of Judaic law and custom. yet when He met the Lord on the road something happened, he was changed, and not due to anything he'd done in keeping with the law. therefor much of his writing discusses the difference between faith and grace, and religious works. an early Christian coming from a Roman environment, were they to write to a church or a fellow Christian, might emphasize that Jesus came for all nations, that God is One, and that through this Jewish Messiah all people come to know and see the One True God of whom no images can be made. the emphasis is different, but both men would be talking about the same Christ / Messiah.

 

[IF_u_knew]

instead, i stuck to the Gospels, and was surprised to hear Jesus describe / affirm Himself as the Son of God, Messiah, One with God, Savior of the world, Good Shepherd, Vine, and Gate. He makes great claims, yet in the Gospels we see Him back these claims with His signs / works, and we hear God's testimony concerning Him, too.

Wow.. thanks for sharing how you came about your faith. I will not touch on Paul as he tends to be off limits with Christians and I am not looking to argue for its sake alone. My question to the above, if you do not mind indulging me that is, you say "we see him back these claims with... " and I wonder, how is that different than all the others who have made these claims? I mean, how did you decide Jesus over others especially not having *actually* seen it? I am curious only because it seems more Jewish people are going the "Jesus as Messiah" route. I can MAYBE see that (not him as a messiah per se.. but in a round about sense, perhaps), but most definitely not in the same way most others are... my view is more in line with what is said in deut 27-29 as it stands now. Anyway, point is.. how were you personally able to decide Jesus as literal in the NT over others with the similar story based on more than "feeling" alone? That was my main issue being raised Christian. I always wondered why I was not just given a coin to toss in the air (not being disrespectful, just honest).

Edited to add: I do find *some* Truth in what Jesus said and I can even dig a few pieces out of what Paul says, but does that necessarily validate us believing that Jesus is the Messiah and especially part of, or only son of, G.d or G.d Himself? It contradicts what is said by G.d.. about Him being the only Saviour and the only One that we are to worship.

 

[ayani]

well, i came to Christian faith via Islam. which states, interestingly, that Jesus is the Messiah, yet not the Son of God, not eternal, and not necessary for faith or salvation. Allah is enough, solely worthy of worship, and Mohammad is his messenger. essentially Islam recognizes Jesus, but strips Him of what makes Him unique and noteworthy for Christians.

as a Muslim, i loved my religion very much, and practiced it faithfully. but, long story short, i came to the point where i realized that no matter what i did or how much i did, i could not get close enough to Allah. in contrast, i listened closely to the prayers of Christians, and wa surprised by how simply, faithfully, and trustingly they talked to God, as though they already knew Him. i disliked their emphasis on Jesus very much (Muslims consider it blasphemy and deeply misguided) , yet came to understand that He was at the heart of what made their faith and my faith different. soon after, and after much struggling and arguing, i prayerfully asked God for the truth, and came to the conclusion, through His answer, that He is the Son of God, Messiah, Saviour, and the One God wants me to know and follow.

it's a big, big leap to go from a monotheism which excludes anyone or anything from taking place alongside God, to Christian faith. but it was a leap worth making. i was also raised Christian, and frankly, resented having to worship Jesus without understanding who He was, or getting any kind of explainations for my questions. i admired Him, kind of, but didn't see why or how He was important. and i guess before a few months ago, was never really Christian in a meaningful way, even though most of my life was spent in going to church.

it's one thing to hear about Him and be asked to believe in Him. it's another thing to know who He is, and take him at His word.

 

[ayani]

I do find *some* Truth in what Jesus said and I can even dig a few pieces out of what Paul says, but does that necessarily validate us believing that Jesus is the Messiah and especially part of, or only son of, G.d or G.d Himself? It contradicts what is said by G.d.. about Him being the only Saviour and the only One that we are to worship.

that was a big deal for me, too. what i asked God, essentially, was "is Jesus Your Son, and do You want me to follow Him?" Islam said otherwise, yet i wasn't sure Islam was telling the truth. Christians were afirming this, though i didn't want to just trust them without knwoing for myself- they might be wrong, too.

what i have found to be believable about Him, is that in Himself He brought God's love, healing, forgiveness, power, grace, righteousness, and law to us. He didn't do it with a book He wrote or a message He started recieving, but through His own life. via Jesus, and uniquely Jesus, God speaks to us, shows us Himself, and makes Himself knowable, touchable, and audible.

i came to the point where i wanted to know God, really know Him, and stop thirsting and seeking. and to know Him as Someone, not just believing in Him.

i also looked to passages like John 5:22-23 and John 10:25-30 to see what he has to say about Himself, and what i could determine from that. to know Jesus, is to know the God who sent Him, apparently. to honor Jesus, is to honor His Father, who loves Him. He and God are One in purpose, Spirit, will, power, and mission. this much i gleaned from the Gospels, and the Spirit, and based on this (and other passages) i have trusted that making Him the rock on whcih i build my life and faith is the best thing that i could do.

 

[IF_u_knew]

it's one thing to hear about Him and be asked to believe in Him. it's another thing to know who He is, and take him at His word.

John 10, the first part of it, really opened up my eyes to the Word of the LORD and how He speaks. However, I do not attribute this to the man Jesus. To me, the Word of the LORD is not Jesus. You say you know who he is, and yet, I thought I knew a lot of people really well.. I thought I could trust pastors, and I have watched them destroy lives with the message of Jesus. So, to me, that destroyed my faith in man.. of which, Jesus was. I finally had to admit, if I can "know" someone for a long time only to find out I have been deceived by them, how much more can I be deceived by a man who I have never met and in fact, can not even see definitive proof of his existence.

I won't go into the long journey of having my faith destroyed and then G.d coming in with knowledge to build me up in Truth on a firm foundation with a Love that I never even knew existed.. certainly never experienced with the faith in Jesus; but I will say one thing and then be finished with this, because it just hit me why I should feel fine about not giving credit to Jesus.

People do not understand that yes.. there is the Word spoken in the words that are attributed to Jesus. It speaks Truth and makes you feel closer to G.d, not because it is Jesus, but because that IS G.d.. NOT THE MAN... BUT THE Word of G.d. The Word is not bound to Jesus. You can find more of G.d's character in the Tanakh.. He, G.d, personally teaches knowledge and Wisdom... True Judgments of G.d and why His Laws are so deeply brilliant in that *they* (not a man) are perfect for converting the soul. You find out how to REALLY KNOW the Voice of G.d and how to decipher Truth from deception. You learn of His GORGEOUS Love that Jesus' "love" does not even touch. So many settle for the *teeny tiny* bit of goodness they are getting naturally from reading the bits of the Word that are in the NT and the bits of the Tanakh that they venture to occasionally, and not only do they settle, but they give the credit of that over to Jesus... Jesus, they say, is the one responsible for their Love of G.d and it just goes to show me that Jesus, the man.. the image is hijacking the praise from whom it truly belongs and depriving so many of the Love of the Creator. :sad:
All that love you feel is nothing compared to all the Love of G.d wants to give. When you have a man stand in the way of receiving your chastisement, then that man stands in the way of the fullness of G.d's Love as well. Does not seem like a very good man who would do such a thing and deprive you from all the Goodness that is G.d.

 

[ayani]

yet i would counter that to know and honor Jesus is to know and honor the God who sent Him. it's a Gospel principal, and it's true that this concept is not something that makes sense to a lot of people.

this comes down essentially to what one understands the relationship between Jesus and God to be, and also, how one reads the Gospels. if one does not believe that certain things attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were even said by Him... well, that is going to make it more difficult for that person and a Christian to be talking about the same thing.

i agree that so many pastors have misused and abused His name. or have failed to truly represent Him. this has damaged the potential for faith in many, many folks. that should not be the case, yet it is.

what i have come to understand about Jesus a little is this. Jesus did not come with a scripture, or a book. Jesus' life is God's message to us. in His words, in His miracles, in His death and resurrection, all these things are God's message, living message, to us. Jesus can not be encapsulated in a concept or idea- He is Someone to be known, trusted, and lived for. He is Someone sent by God, through whom we might know God, and be saved, reconciled, and redeemed. that is where faith comes in- having faith that to know, honor, glorify, and love this man takes nothing from God's majesty and honor, and in fact honors and pleases Him. that is the faith of taking Jesus at His word, and in faith looking directly at Him, as opposed to around Him.

and, as always, faith is a matter between the soul, and the Spirit of God.

 

[AK4]

doubtless many faiths have had god-kings in their pantheon, and the concept is an ancient one. it's nearly universal, and that's pretty clear across the spectrum.

initially, when i converted, i was wary of Paul. as a Muslim, i was told that his writings essentially ruined / Hellenized Christian thought, and avoided them.

instead, i stuck to the Gospels, and was surprised to hear Jesus describe / affirm Himself as the Son of God, Messiah, One with God, Savior of the world, Good Shepherd, Vine, and Gate. He makes great claims, yet in the Gospels we see Him back these claims with His signs / works, and we hear God's testimony concerning Him, too.

later, when i read Paul, i was surpised to see him failing to contradict anything Jesus said about Himself in the Gospels. i let down my guard a bit, and began to read the Pauline epistles. i found statements there consistent with the Gospel descriptions of Him, and consistent with what other early Christians (e.g. Peter and James) were writing.

every person who comes to know Him will be coming from someplace different. i came to Him from an Islamic background, so what i emphasize in telling others about Him will be different from what a Baptist pastor, a Messianic Jew, or a former Hindu would emphasize. Paul came from a background of strict, faithful, and detailed keeping of Judaic law and custom. yet when He met the Lord on the road something happened, he was changed, and not due to anything he'd done in keeping with the law. therefor much of his writing discusses the difference between faith and grace, and religious works. an early Christian coming from a Roman environment, were they to write to a church or a fellow Christian, might emphasize that Jesus came for all nations, that God is One, and that through this Jewish Messiah all people come to know and see the One True God of whom no images can be made. the emphasis is different, but both men would be talking about the same Christ / Messiah.

Very Goood:clap:rainbow1:

 

[IF_u_knew]

this comes down essentially to what one understands the relationship between Jesus and God to be, and also, how one reads the Gospels.

Hmm.. I do not know. I will admit to a struggle in my mind concerning Jesus; though I do *not* struggle with whether he is THE G.d in the flesh. In the sense that David speaks of in the Psalms, perhaps a "god" (not to be implied as a paganistic view of god(s), please), but there still is much in the NT that is too closely related to Hellenistic beliefs. Like I said, I pondered this and where I stand now, according to what Moses wrote and other very specific references in the Tanakh, I can grasp how the above that you stated could be very true; what I cannot grasp is worshiping him as G.d as it is stated that G.d is not a man. G.d does reside in and with certain of people, but to say that one man will be G.d is contradictory to the Tanakh.

To clarify my previous post, I do not necessarily view it as the fault of Jesus that his image was shifted to the hellenistic view it is today. I also read, as I stated, certain of words attributed to Jesus and it reads very much to me the same as the Voice of the Word reads; as well as the whole of the Tanakh. But all in all, it came down to this for me.. either I was going to have grab onto something that I would KNOW or I was going to face whatever the consequences were (that is, if it truly was only to be accepted by blind faith). I relate very much to Job in that I have to maintain my honesty before G.d and not be a hypocrite...which that is what I was asked to be when I was told to blindly believe and shush the questions. I had to use the Laws of Reason and not just emotions in determining the Truth (as I can be very sensitive to perceived sufferings of others and thus easily deceived). I do not regret it and because of it, I found a very intimate and recognizable Voice behind the words written in the Tanakh. I finally understand the Wisdom of the Laws and cherish them for they are the difference to me between the deception and the Truth; not to mention a mirror that I can look at to reflect my heart and grow in His ways. I also perceived from early on that G.d was not a mean G.d (I actually was always more scared of Jesus than G.d ) that I could not approach. Meaning, to bypass going before Him and accepting the chastisements instead opting for someone to pay "a price" for me.. well, it felt wrong for me because my heart is not wrong despite things I may have done.. I am easy to teach and lead so long as there is 100% trust involved on both sides. It stands to reason that I was put here to learn and I felt more comfort when I approached Him personally in all honesty of heart and threw myself at His mercy (scary for sure.. but I knew if I did not, I was cheating Him and myself). I had to know and that knowing for me, could not come by man. It was not the hand of a man that saved me.. it was very much the right hand of the mercy of G.d Himself.

Having said that, I have known some honest and VERY giving people who view Jesus in the way that you stated above and so, since G.d promised to bless His children despite the curse, it is not mine to say how He views your heart. Personally, I perceive you to be honest and a giving person (based on the discussion, that is). Thank you for sharing your perspectives with me and being so kind about it. :yes:

 

[ayani]

If You Knew...

you are absolutely welcome.

i can not impart faith, but i can share what knowing Him and trusting Him has done in my own life. what i do know is what i share with others. i feel deeply and surely that my call is to work with Muslims, sharing the Gospel with them and pointing them to the Son of God.

He has promised all of us that if we seek the truth about Him sincerely and thoughtfully, that we will find Him. He has said some remarkable and startling things about Himself, and God. surely God speak in the Torah, clearly, decisively, and personally. it is remarkable for me to read how much of a Someone God is Biblically, as opposed to simply a Being or an abstract Reality.

so God bless you, and if you have questions or ideas to bounce, please pm me. thank you for lsitening, and for giving me the chance to listen to you, too. shalom, and God's peace.

 

[IF_u_knew]

Once, I was asked if there was anything bad Jesus did in his life. My answer was:

Yes, there was something Jesus did, which I wish he had not done, because it does
not represent well the People he belonged to.

Once a Gentile Canaanite mother was crying after him, asking for her daughter to be cured, and Jesus would not give a damn to her. His disciples told him to do something for that woman or discard her, because she was making them go crazy with her no-stop crying.

What did Jesus say? I haven't come for Gentiles but ONLY for the House of Israel. Then, kept on going and the woman kept on crying and following him.

When he couldn't take any longer, he stopped and told her: Hey, listen, what do you want from me? To cure my daughter Master. No way, I cannot take of the food of the children and throw it unto the dogs.

He meant the Jews for the children, and the Gentiles for the dogs. But only after the woman understood and recognized her condition of dog, by saying that the dogs also feed from the crumbles that fall from the table of the children, Jesus saw that he would never get rid of that woman. So, he changed his mind and cured her
daughter. Then, to erase a little the impression left on her for being forced to recognize her doggy condition, he mentioned something about her strong faith and left.

That was terrible, if we can imagine what that poor woman went through till she got
what she wanted. The text is in Matthew 15:21-28.

Ben: :sad:

hmm.. One has to wonder if there was more than one Jesus considering the following.. oh, and I saw this after telling G.d that He promised to show these things to those who belong to Him..(Isaiah 42-44) :thud:

There is the above account of Jesus as brought forth by Ben, and then Jesus' parable speaking volumes considering..

Luke 16:
19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


Keep in mind, Jesus kept company with the rich in the community, so he could not have been but a poor beggar... obvious if one actually takes note of who it is that is amongst his "following."
I am sure that either this will be ignored or will be explained away by "faith" type explanations.. but, can't we even just consider that it is quite odd and hypocritical, considering (especially considering the last 2 verses)?

 

[Ben Masada]

hmm.. One has to wonder if there was more than one Jesus considering the following.. oh, and I saw this after telling G.d that He promised to show these things to those who belong to Him..(Isaiah 42-44) :thud:

There is the above account of Jesus as brought forth by Ben, and then Jesus' parable speaking volumes considering..

Luke 16:
19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.


Keep in mind, Jesus kept company with the rich in the community, so he could not have been but a poor beggar... obvious if one actually takes note of who it is that is amongst his "following."
I am sure that either this will be ignored or will be explained away by "faith" type explanations.. but, can't we even just consider that it is quite odd and hypocritical, considering (especially considering the last 2 verses)?

Hi Katie, I am sure you are aware that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable. It never happened literally. It was mentioned by Jesus to confirm his cofession in Matthew 5:17-19 that he had come not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to keep and confirm and to warn us all to do the same. The didactic of this parable is found in the scene he builds of Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham and the rich man in hell. Through the dialogue between Abraham and the rich man, Jesus confirms his mission about the Law. So, through Abraham, Jesus says that the only way to escape Hell is to listen to Moses. He means the Law and the Prophets of Matthew 5:17-19. Judaism in a word, which was his faith. Can you see what I see? If not, let me know, for you know how I prize your insight.

Ben:

 

[BaronVonKaiser]

So, through Abraham, Jesus says that the only way to escape Hell is to listen to Moses. He means the Law and the Prophets of Matthew 5:17-19. Judaism in a word, which was his faith.

So Jesus believed in the old testament and Moses? I believe in another thread we just recently came to the conclusion that nothing Moses wrote could be taken seriously, apparently he refers to himself as "a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth." Wouldn't this mean that Jesus also was misguided in his faith?

 

[Ben Masada]

So Jesus believed in the old testament and Moses? I believe in another thread we just recently came to the conclusion that nothing Moses wrote could be taken seriously, apparently he refers to himself as "a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth." Wouldn't this mean that Jesus also was misguided in his faith?

Jesus' reference to Moses in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, had in Jesus the meaning of Torah or Pentateuch. We know those books were not written by Moses. Although fragments of the Torah were written by him, like the lost book of the Law, and the book of the Covenant. But most of those books were written by Ezra, the most famous Scribe in the History of Israel.

Regarding your last question, we could discuss it if you wanna get into the details.
Let me know how you figure that being Jewish is to be misguided in one's faith. Who knows, we could find here something new to learn.

Ben: :clap

 

[BaronVonKaiser]

Jesus' reference to Moses in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, had in Jesus the meaning of Torah or Pentateuch. We know those books were not written by Moses. Although fragments of the Torah were written by him, like the lost book of the Law, and the book of the Covenant. But most of those books were written by Ezra, the most famous Scribe in the History of Israel.

Regarding your last question, we could discuss it if you wanna get into the details.
Let me know how you figure that being Jewish is to be misguided in one's faith. Who knows, we could find here something new to learn.

Ben: :clap

Well apparently I was mistaken then, my apologies if I've caused any offence, I had started a thread trying to figure out who had written the first few books of the bible but I couldn't get any answers. Also, have to say, I love debating with Jewish people, almost every time I've had the opportunity the debate has been far more civil and enlightening than in speaking to people of other religions.

Anyway, that aside, you obviously have some knowledge of the bible, I'm going to guess that you probably feel that most if not all of the bible to be taken figuratively rather than literally? And speaking in terms of not just Jesus, but the entire bible, it does seem to be very biased towards men in most cases, women considered to be possessions of men and double standards throughout. Is this something that you take seriously or is it just dated by writers who didn't know better at the time?

 

[IF_u_knew]

Hi Katie, I am sure you are aware that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable. It never happened literally. It was mentioned by Jesus to confirm his cofession in Matthew 5:17-19 that he had come not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to keep and confirm and to warn us all to do the same. The didactic of this parable is found in the scene he builds of Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham and the rich man in hell. Through the dialogue between Abraham and the rich man, Jesus confirms his mission about the Law. So, through Abraham, Jesus says that the only way to escape Hell is to listen to Moses. He means the Law and the Prophets of Matthew 5:17-19. Judaism in a word, which was his faith. Can you see what I see? If not, let me know, for you know how I prize your insight.

Ben:

Yes, I know it is a parable. And now, after thinking about this quite a bit in light of the last message I sent you, I do not see it being contradictory at all to what Jesus did. Whether we see it the same way or not, I do not know. *shrugs*

About the Rich Man in hell, well, we can figure out who that is and who the 5 brothers are by using the Law and the prophets, specifically declared in the first book. And pretty much the whole deciphering of the "New" Testament can be worked out through the Tanakh. It is rather strange how Judas (being a son of David, as well) and Magdalene (perhaps a correlation with the Canaanite woman asking for her daughter to be healed by Jesus, no?) are both the ones who had their images marred. I would assume that Benoni is the one in whom bought the Truth and corrupted it; which I see by going to the beginning. Lazarus, the poor beggar, can be seen elsewhere in the NT and the deciphering of that also comes about through the Law and the prophets (the 46th of Is. being one of many places, no?).

Now, again... whether we see this the same way or not, I am unsure of. :cover: I feel rather confident though of what I see since it is said that the end is declared from the beginning and in HIS way, so as not to be confused in knowing that He is the One creating this. I am further amazed by His ways. Now that I have chosen to look at the NT again after all this time of only looking at the Tanakh, I see clearly what Jesus meant in Matt. 5: 17-19... like I said, the creation process is not over and done with.

So, the same view or no?

 

[Ben Masada]

Yes, I know it is a parable. And now, after thinking about this quite a bit in light of the last message I sent you, I do not see it being contradictory at all to what Jesus did. Whether we see it the same way or not, I do not know. *shrugs*

About the Rich Man in hell, well, we can figure out who that is and who the 5 brothers are by using the Law and the prophets, specifically declared in the first book. And pretty much the whole deciphering of the "New" Testament can be worked out through the Tanakh. It is rather strange how Judas (being a son of David, as well) and Magdalene (perhaps a correlation with the Canaanite woman asking for her daughter to be healed by Jesus, no?) are both the ones who had their images marred. I would assume that Benoni is the one in whom bought the Truth and corrupted it; which I see by going to the beginning. Lazarus, the poor beggar, can be seen elsewhere in the NT and the deciphering of that also comes about through the Law and the prophets (the 46th of Is. being one of many places, no?).

Now, again... whether we see this the same way or not, I am unsure of. :cover: I feel rather confident though of what I see since it is said that the end is declared from the beginning and in HIS way, so as not to be confused in knowing that He is the One creating this. I am further amazed by His ways. Now that I have chosen to look at the NT again after all this time of only looking at the Tanakh, I see clearly what Jesus meant in Matt. 5: 17-19... like I said, the creation process is not over and done with.

So, the same view or no?

Pretty much the same. Only the metaphor of Judas and Mary Magdalene has clouded my understanding to have a complete idea of what you mean by having their images marred. Do you mean marred literally? I understand that Mary did finish her station
in life quite well with Jesus in a way that none other did. Judas... well, he punished himself for Jesus having failed him.

Ben:

 

[Ben Masada]

Well apparently I was mistaken then, my apologies if I've caused any offence, I had started a thread trying to figure out who had written the first few books of the bible but I couldn't get any answers. Also, have to say, I love debating with Jewish people, almost every time I've had the opportunity the debate has been far more civil and enlightening than in speaking to people of other religions.

Anyway, that aside, you obviously have some knowledge of the bible, I'm going to guess that you probably feel that most if not all of the bible to be taken figuratively rather than literally? And speaking in terms of not just Jesus, but the entire bible, it does seem to be very biased towards men in most cases, women considered to be possessions of men and double standards throughout. Is this something that you take seriously or is it just dated by writers who didn't know better at the time?

No sir, not all of the Bible is to be taken figuratively. We have also the historical books. The Bible is a book of Literature. Since the Literature of any People or nation is rich in allegories and metaphors, so is the Bible. I mean a lot of it. Have you read my threat on "The Double Allegory of Creation?" You will have a pretty good idea of what I mean.


Regarding women being considered possessions of men as you understand in the Bible, I would not say that the writers didn't not know better, but that they had not reached at their time, the evolution that we have at ours. Well, I guess that's just a different way to say that they didn't know better. But if you focus on the Mosaic reformation of the rights of women in the case of the daughters of Zelophad, you will agree that the Jewish mind was evolving.

Ben:

 

[IF_u_knew]

Pretty much the same. Only the metaphor of Judas and Mary Magdalene has clouded my understanding to have a complete idea of what you mean by having their images marred. Do you mean marred literally? I understand that Mary did finish her station
in life quite well with Jesus in a way that none other did. Judas... well, he punished himself for Jesus having failed him.

Ben:

I have an answer... but discretion tells me to simply say on here, it all is summed up in the Tanakh quite nicely.. regarding Magdalene and Judas, that is. By the way, did you even get my last message?